these guys trying very hard to make us forget how bad is 5Dmk3. So this NEW rumor...

Would you care to explain how the 5D mkIII is a "bad" camera please?

its best for the stills, but not for video, even after 3years of its big brother..i have been playing with it since i got one, and very much disappointed, it might be 0.5% improvement in video.in dslr video segment , it seems nikon started the revolution and it took over it agin with d800. 5d's are all in between.

I don't use it for stills though.

I just dont know when Nikon started the revolution in DSLR video, couse i tought Nikon released the D700 and it vas a great DSLR but a month or two later Canon released the 5d2 and had a great video funktion and it destrojed the D700 in sales just because of the video and its quality (ok not just video but the overall package)

I think that if Canon brings an entry level FF body to the line up, it will be significantly crappier than even the 5DmkII. Since the 5DmkIII is obviously the successor to the 5DmkII, then an "entry level" body should logically be placed at a bar below the 5D line in performance and build quality. I wouldn't get my hopes up that this new entry level FF camera will be all that impressive. I'd expect disappointments in ISO performance, resolution, image quality, continuous shooting, and AF system at the minimum compared to the 5DmkIII. I also wouldn't be surprised if it is even set a bar below the 5DmkII in terms of ISO performance, resolution, and image quality. It also would make sense for Canon to price the camera lower than $2000. Maybe this will fill the 7D price point and the 60D successor will inherit the 7D's strengths and come in at a price point just under the new entry level FF camera?

How could it be crappier than the 5dmkii? This new entry level ff will either have the sensor of the 5dmkii (unlikely) or from the 5dmkiii or 1dx(also unlikely, i think), or it will have a completely new sensor. So if it has one of the other, current sensors and digic 5, it will be at least equal in iq to those corresponding cameras. If canon makes a new sensor, why would they make a sensor crappier than the 4 year old sensor from the 5dmkii? I don't see how any new ff camera, entry level or not would take a step backwards from the 5dmkii.

It makes sense for it to be crappier than a 5DmkII if it is an "entry-level" FF camera. The term "entry-level" means exactly that. The "5D" line is not "entry-level" right? So it would be outlandish to think that the "entry level" FF camera would outperform the 5DmkII. Although the 5DmkII is 4 years old, it is still only 1 generation old so it is impossible for Canon to add another FF camera to the lineup that is deemed "entry level" but yet outperforms a higher end FF body that is likely still widely used by many many photographers. Let me put it this way... think back on all the technological advances in the overall DSLR lineup. Did a T3i have better image quality than a 40D? No because the T3i is "entry level" and the 40D is 1 generation older but yet one step higher in the lineup of APS-C bodies. In fact even the 20D would beat out a T3i in image quality and that's even further back in tech! So it seems like wishful thinking for an "entry level" FF camera to be equal to or better than a 5DmkII right?

sphax

The entry level FF camera only has to be inferior to the 5D3. Thus it could be almost identical to the 5D2.

So they're gonna develop a brand new product that has "almost" the same properties of the 5DmkII ... Just for people to buy it a bit more because it won't be a 4 years old design ... That sounds like a huge investment for a small difference in sales !

So they're gonna develop a brand new product that has "almost" the same properties of the 5DmkII ... Just for people to buy it a bit more because it won't be a 4 years old design ... That sounds like a huge investment for a small difference in sales !

Well, I see $3500.00 USD as a pretty steep price point for a hobbyist. I paid ~$2500 USD for my 5DII, and it was a stretch.

If they had something to market at the ~$2000.00 USD price point, and if it was equal to the 5DII for image quality, it will sell.

In comparison to my old EOS 620, which was my last "full frame" camera, I do not see any problems with the 5DII AF system. Those migrating from a current "low end" DSLR will not feel the same way. Canon will have to improve the "entry level full frame" AF system from the 5DII and yet keep it far enough away from the 5DIII.

It makes sense for it to be crappier than a 5DmkII if it is an "entry-level" FF camera. The term "entry-level" means exactly that. The "5D" line is not "entry-level" right? So it would be outlandish to think that the "entry level" FF camera would outperform the 5DmkII. Although the 5DmkII is 4 years old, it is still only 1 generation old so it is impossible for Canon to add another FF camera to the lineup that is deemed "entry level" but yet outperforms a higher end FF body that is likely still widely used by many many photographers.

Wrong.

The entry level FF camera only has to be inferior to the 5D3. Thus it could be almost identical to the 5D2. Consider that the current price point ($2199) of the 5D2 is almost exactly where an entry level full frame camera would be. Maybe plus or minus $200.

An entry level FF camera would be put into the product lineup relative to the 5D3 and the 60D or its successor.

What you just stated doesn't make any sense in the benefit to Canon in sales. If a new camera offers around the same performance as the 5DmkII at a similar price... then why would people buy it? They would just keep using the 5DmkII. So if Canon were to do exactly what you stated, they would have to spend a lot of money in developing, testing, producing, and marketing a different camera that would hurt their existing 5DmkII sales (since they are keeping the 5DmkII in production in the forseeable future). Note that Canon has not indicated that the 5DmkII will be discontinued when the entry level FF camera becomes available.

It makes sense for it to be crappier than a 5DmkII if it is an "entry-level" FF camera. The term "entry-level" means exactly that. The "5D" line is not "entry-level" right? So it would be outlandish to think that the "entry level" FF camera would outperform the 5DmkII. Although the 5DmkII is 4 years old, it is still only 1 generation old so it is impossible for Canon to add another FF camera to the lineup that is deemed "entry level" but yet outperforms a higher end FF body that is likely still widely used by many many photographers.

Wrong.

The entry level FF camera only has to be inferior to the 5D3. Thus it could be almost identical to the 5D2. Consider that the current price point ($2199) of the 5D2 is almost exactly where an entry level full frame camera would be. Maybe plus or minus $200.

An entry level FF camera would be put into the product lineup relative to the 5D3 and the 60D or its successor.

What you just stated doesn't make any sense in the benefit to Canon in sales. If a new camera offers around the same performance as the 5DmkII at a similar price... then why would people buy it? They would just keep using the 5DmkII. So if Canon were to do exactly what you stated, they would have to spend a lot of money in developing, testing, producing, and marketing a different camera that would hurt their existing 5DmkII sales (since they are keeping the 5DmkII in production in the forseeable future). Note that Canon has not indicated that the 5DmkII will be discontinued when the entry level FF camera becomes available.

It would have to be inferior to the 5D3 in some sense as otherwise you would have many disgruntle mkIII owners (me being one of them) if a supeior model was cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF version of the 7D. They might even call t the 7D mk II or 7DX

It makes sense for it to be crappier than a 5DmkII if it is an "entry-level" FF camera. The term "entry-level" means exactly that. The "5D" line is not "entry-level" right? So it would be outlandish to think that the "entry level" FF camera would outperform the 5DmkII. Although the 5DmkII is 4 years old, it is still only 1 generation old so it is impossible for Canon to add another FF camera to the lineup that is deemed "entry level" but yet outperforms a higher end FF body that is likely still widely used by many many photographers.

Wrong.

The entry level FF camera only has to be inferior to the 5D3. Thus it could be almost identical to the 5D2. Consider that the current price point ($2199) of the 5D2 is almost exactly where an entry level full frame camera would be. Maybe plus or minus $200.

An entry level FF camera would be put into the product lineup relative to the 5D3 and the 60D or its successor.

What you just stated doesn't make any sense in the benefit to Canon in sales. If a new camera offers around the same performance as the 5DmkII at a similar price... then why would people buy it? They would just keep using the 5DmkII. So if Canon were to do exactly what you stated, they would have to spend a lot of money in developing, testing, producing, and marketing a different camera that would hurt their existing 5DmkII sales (since they are keeping the 5DmkII in production in the forseeable future). Note that Canon has not indicated that the 5DmkII will be discontinued when the entry level FF camera becomes available.

What if Canon discontinues the current 5DII?

Canon could use the current 5DIII sensor, a morphed 7D-like AF system and maybe something like no video. Throw in a current Digic5 and lower the FPS.

Then, put it all into a current chassis and sell it as a new model for $1595. The 5DII (or, another new model variant) could still be sold including 5DIII-like video features at the $1995 price point. This is actually pretty easy to do because most changes are in the firmware. Heck, Canon could include the hardware (video jacks for example) but disable it through the firmware. If you want to upgrade your "basic" FF camera, send it in to enable the firmware. This elimiantes 2 production lines and parts groupings. Win Win, as long as the firmware upgrades are possible in the future, even for second or third hand equipment. Just like computer software, there would be a point where upgrades on old gear is not possible.

Those that need what the 5DIII offers will buy that model instead. Therefore, it will not cannibalize 5DIII sales, but rather gain sales from those that can't swing or justify the 5DIII price point but still want the full frame experience... and more importantly, may be willing to choose a different brand.

Increased production of the 5DIII sensor only lowers costs and increases market share.

I predict that a ~$1500 basic full frame camera aimed at pictures and no (or limited) video would sell like hotcakes. What brand will release one first?

If Canon wants to increase market share, they need to do this. Once someone is invested in accessories, making a brand switch is more difficult.

sphax

So if you sum up all of those last thoughts you had here a lot of people believe that Canon is gonna put in the market a new FF which would be better than the 5DmkII but priced around 2000$ ... I wonder how they can do that indeed, as for me the only option they have is to be better in some points (AF, processor) and worse on some others (body construction) in which case it shouldn't discontinue the sales of the 5DmkII as people could chose "do I want a better AF or a stronger body" ... Or maybe I'm wrong and they have some magic trick to pay for development of something better than 5DmkII and really cheaper ... but I seriously doubt it ! Why ? Can I state here that you should see the latests announcements on "better-ization" of Canon equipments ? :

so i'm pretty curious about how they can right now make something better than 5DmkII for even cheaper than the actual 5DmkII price .... !!!!

Utilization of existing components for a new model.

More parts made = lower cost per part.

Better amortization of R&D into new part.

Who knows what Canon's actual cost per unit is? Maybe, the 5DIII costs them $2k USD to make, they sell it to dealers for $3000 USD and fix MSRP at $3499. Just a guess, I have no idea.

If Canon sells another FF camera with the 5DIII sensor, body and most of the innards, the cost of manufacturing each 5DIII just went down, so profits increase as long as sales are still made to distributors.

so i'm pretty curious about how they can right now make something better than 5DmkII for even cheaper than the actual 5DmkII price .... !!!!

Utilization of existing components for a new model.

More parts made = lower cost per part.

Better amortization of R&D into new part.

Who knows what Canon's actual cost per unit is? Maybe, the 5DIII costs them $2k USD to make, they sell it to dealers for $3000 USD and fix MSRP at $3499. Just a guess, I have no idea.

If Canon sells another FF camera with the 5DIII sensor, body and most of the innards, the cost of manufacturing each 5DIII just went down, so profits increase as long as sales are still made to distributors.

Well yeah you can always make some kind of Frankenstein camera from different cameras But I guess you'll always have to develop some new once and then the price of development will have to be covered by the number of sales of course, because if you don't develop ANY new pieces how come that's a "new design" that people will wanna buy ?

Well yeah you can always make some kind of Frankenstein camera from different cameras But I guess you'll always have to develop some new once and then the price of development will have to be covered by the number of sales of course, because if you don't develop ANY new pieces how come that's a "new design" that people will wanna buy ?

Frankenstein camera? I think not.

Just repackage the parts already being made.

Apple does the same stuff with the iPad. Do you *really* think there is an extra few hundred dollars worth of stuff in there from low end to high end?

Well everyone says here that this "entry-FF" should be more or less the same quality as the 5DmkII so you can't really compare : Apple just made a nice "four-times" multiplication on its screen resolution ... !

Anyway I think globally I just don't see the point of an entry FF who'd be about the same thing as a 5DmkII but re-designed, that's all.

Well everyone says here that this "entry-FF" should be more or less the same quality as the 5DmkII so you can't really compare : Apple just made a nice "four-times" multiplication on its screen resolution ... !

Anyway I think globally I just don't see the point of an entry FF who'd be about the same thing as a 5DmkII but re-designed, that's all.

And that's all Apple provided is a nice screen. Worthwhile to some? Sure. The added processing speed and battery are directly related to the screen requirements. Apple did NOT include Siri in the New Ipad, for example. So, other than the display and the stuff to run the display, there is (gasp) nothing new, yet people are lining up to buy it. (glad the smite thing is gone

But, I do believe you missed my iPad point. The prices range from $499 to $829. The only changes are internal memory and Wi-Fi or Wi-Fi + 4G.

Do you really think there is $330 in extra parts in there? (hell no)

Do you really think they are making 6 different physical versions? (possible, but not likely)

Canon could do the same thing with a "re-vamped" "entry level" "5D" lineup.

They have the sensor. They have a current camera body. Different features enabled by processing can be disabled or locked out.

So yes, I really believe Canon could offer a stills oriented "new 5D" for $1499 if they wanted to. If the firmware side was upgradeable to enable video stuff, people would buy it. Same for AF features available within a given module.